Do human beings truly have a free will?

General Faith
1

I went to GotQuestions and read this…

This is what I found…

The explanation quoted from GotQuestions.org contains several correct observations, but it also blends two incompatible ideas. It affirms that fallen human nature prevents a person from making himself righteous, yet it simultaneously suggests that the sinner retains the inherent ability to choose salvation when commanded.

The tension arises because the biblical description of the fallen will goes further than the article allows. Scripture does not merely say that humans are guilty; it repeatedly states that the fallen will is morally unable to submit to God apart from divine intervention.

The first issue concerns the condition of the human will after the fall. Scripture does not describe fallen humanity as merely capable but unwilling. It describes the mind and will as enslaved to sin.

~Romans 8:7–8

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God for it does not submit to God’s law indeed it cannot Those who are in the flesh cannot please God[1]

The phrase “indeed it cannot” introduces inability language. The fallen mind is not merely reluctant; it lacks the moral capacity to submit to God. If pleasing God includes faith and repentance, then those actions cannot arise from the fleshly nature itself.

A similar description appears in the words of Christ concerning the condition of the human heart.

~John 8:34

Truly truly I say to you everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin[2]

Slavery language is important. A slave acts voluntarily yet remains under the controlling power of the master. In the same way sinners make real choices but their will is bound by their sinful nature.

The apostle also describes humanity’s moral state using the metaphor of spiritual death.

~Colossians 2:13

And you who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh God made alive together with him having forgiven us all our trespasses[3]

The decisive action is God making the sinner alive. The text attributes the transition from death to life to divine initiative.

This leads to the second issue. Commands in Scripture do not necessarily imply innate human ability.
God frequently commands what humans cannot accomplish apart from His transforming grace.

For example God commands a new heart.

~Ezekiel 18:31

Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit[4]

Yet elsewhere the same prophet explains that the new heart is something God Himself must give.

~Ezekiel 36:26

And I will give you a new heart and a new spirit I will put within you And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh[5]

The command exposes human responsibility, while the promise reveals divine causation.

A third issue concerns repentance and faith themselves. The article implies that humans possess the natural ability to produce these responses once commanded.
~Acts 11:18 However several passages explicitly state that repentance and faith are granted by God.

Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life[6]

~Ephesians 2:8

For by grace you have been saved through faith And this is not your own doing it is the gift of God[7]

These texts describe repentance and faith as gifts granted through divine grace rather than autonomous acts of the natural will.

A fourth element appears in the teaching of Christ about divine drawing.

~John 6:65

No one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father[8]

The verb “can” addresses ability. Coming to Christ requires something granted by the Father.

Therefore a more precise biblical formulation would be the following.

Human beings truly make voluntary choices and are responsible for them.
Yet because the fallen will is enslaved to sin, no one chooses God apart from the transforming grace of God.
Through the Word and the work of the Holy Spirit, God grants repentance and faith, producing the new birth that results in a willing response to Christ.

Thus Scripture preserves two realities simultaneously. Human beings freely act according to their nature, yet salvation ultimately originates in the sovereign grace of God revealed through the redemptive work of Christ in the cross and the resurrection.

Humans are responsible for their actions. God commands obedience, repentance, and faith, yet these responses are only possible because God transforms the heart and gives a new nature, enabling a willing belief. Salvation is fully God’s work and at the same time received through genuine human response.

Lastly, HOW “free” is “our” free will?

Shalom.

J.

  1. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God for it does not submit to God’s law indeed it cannot Those who are in the flesh cannot please God ESV ↩︎

  2. Truly truly I say to you everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin ESV ↩︎

  3. And you who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh God made alive together with him having forgiven us all our trespasses ESV ↩︎

  4. Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit Why will you die O house of Israel ESV ↩︎

  5. And I will give you a new heart and a new spirit I will put within you And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh ESV ↩︎

  6. Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life ESV ↩︎

  7. For by grace you have been saved through faith And this is not your own doing it is the gift of God ESV ↩︎

  8. No one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father ESV ↩︎

1 Like
2

Debate: Predestination or Free Will? (White vs Sungenis)

J.

1 Like
3

@KPuff @Bruce_Leiter would you brothers like to contribute on this topic. And on Justification, another topic.

Arminian or Reformed, makes no difference.

God bless.

J.

1 Like
4

Do human beings truly have a free will?

I was trying to decide if I should respond to this.

5

Go right ahead bother, since the others don’t want to participate, did our “autonomous free will saved us?”

Prevenient grace is a phrase used to describe the grace given by God that precedes the act of a sinner exercising saving faith in Jesus Christ. The term prevenient comes from a Latin word that meant ”to come before, to anticipate.” By definition, every theological system that affirms the necessity of God’s grace prior to a sinner’s conversion teaches a type of prevenient grace. The Reformed doctrine of irresistible grace is a type of prevenient grace, as is common grace.

However, when the phrase “prevenient grace” is used in theological discussions, it is used in a specific way. In the context of the on-going Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, prevenient grace is referred to in order to object to the Calvinist doctrine of irresistible grace. This is the reason why, in both modern and historic times, it has also been called “resistible grace” or “pre-regenerating grace.” Since denying the necessity of God’s grace prior to a sinner’s conversion is clearly against biblical teaching, the non-Calvinist theological systems have to affirm a doctrine of grace that precedes a person’s exercising of saving faith. Since non-Calvinists do not believe the saving grace of God always results in the sinner coming to Christ, Christians down through the ages have referred to a type of grace they call prevenient. Simply put, prevenient grace is the grace of God given to individuals that releases them from their bondage to sin and enables them to come to Christ in faith but does not guarantee that the sinner will actually do so. Thus, the efficacy of the enabling grace of God is determined not by God but by man.

Historically, within the Arminian theological system, there have been three prominent positions concerning the doctrine of prevenient grace. Within classical Arminianism, there are two positions. Within Wesleyanism, there is one prominent position. Though all three positions have similarities, they are by no means identical. In fact, correctly defining prevenient grace has led to in-house debates within the Arminian tradition.

The first of the two prominent positions on the doctrine of prevenient grace in classical Arminianism is that until the Gospel, the instrument by which God draws sinners to Himself, is presented to a sinner, the sinner is in complete bondage to sin. The Holy Spirit works with the presentation of the Gospel through teaching (John 6:45) and convicting (John 16:8) the sinner, enabling the sinner to respond in the exercising of saving faith in Christ. The Holy Spirit opens the heart (Acts 16:14) and mind (Luke 24:45) of the sinner, thus drawing the sinner to Christ (John 6:44, 12:32), and the sinner is then enabled to exercise his newly freed will in placing his faith in Christ for salvation. This falls in line with the biblical teaching that the natural man is unable to understand spiritual things (1 Corinthians 2:14; Romans 8:7-8), which would include the message of the Gospel. However, Arminians teach that, although the sinner is now enabled to place his faith in Christ, this enablement by no means guarantees that the sinner will actually do so. This contradicts the proclamation by Jesus that all those the Father gives to Him will come to Him (John 6:37).

The second position is a bit more complicated than the first. In this position there is, essentially, a lesser and greater drawing via prevenient grace, which comes through the proclamation of the Gospel and the internal calling of God, sometimes referred to as the “full intensity” of prevenient grace. That is, God is drawing all men in a lesser sense and then drawing those who have the Gospel presented to them in another, greater sense. Some have called this latter drawing the dispensing of “particular prevenient grace.” In this position, God has given all men a prevenient grace that results in a universal healing of total depravity by the grace of God through the atoning work of Christ. This, in turn, has alleviated, though not fully, the corruption of inherited depravity. This position resembles what is sometimes called the “partial depravity” of Arminianism, since total depravity no longer describes what people are but rather what people were. That is, because of the atoning work of Christ, all people are no longer completely incapable of hearing and responding to the Gospel (John 6:44, 8:43); rather, all people have some ability. However, similar to the other position in classical Arminianism, people are not completely freed from their bondage of sin until the Gospel is presented to them and God calls them internally through its presentation. Arminius might have referred to this concept when he spoke of the “intermediate stage between being unregenerate and regenerate” while others have referred to people in this stage as “partially regenerated.” Since Arminians believe that regeneration logically comes after faith, when a person repents of his sin and exercises saving faith in Christ, then that person is “fully regenerated.”

J.

6

You see what he did there?

Peter

7

What did “he” did there what brother?

J.

8

When he said this?

He has the free will to respond or not. I believe he was joking.

Peter

1 Like
9

If that be the case, “joking” aside, he is in a bit of a pickle.

Liberty and Ability

Fifthly, Another fruitful source of confusion on this subject, is confounding liberty with ability. The usage which attaches the same meaning to these terms is very ancient. Augustine denied free will to man since the fall.
Pelagius affirmed freedom of will to be essential to our nature.
The former intended simply to deny to fallen man the power to turn himself unto God. The latter defined liberty to be the ability at any moment to determine himself either for good or evil.
The controversy between Luther and Erasmus was really about ability, nominally it was about free-will.

Luther’s book is entitled “De Servo Arbitrio,” that of Erasmus, “De Libero Arbitrio.”
This usage pervades all the symbols of the Reformation, and was followed by the theologians of the sixteenth century. They all ascribe free agency to man in the true sense of the words, but deny to him freedom of will.

To a great extent this confusion is still kept up. Many of the prevalent definitions of liberty are definitions of ability; and much that is commonly advanced to prove the liberty of the will, is really intended, and is of force only as in support of the doctrine of ability.

Jacobi defines liberty to be the power to decide in favour of the dictates of reason in opposition to the solicitations of sense. Bretschneider says it is the power to decide according to reason. Augustine, and after him most Augustinians distinguished,

(1.) The liberty of man before the fall, which was an ability either to sin or not to sin.

(2.) The state of man since the fall, when he has liberty to sin, but not to good.

(3.) The state of man in heaven when he has liberty to good, but not to evil. This last is the highest form of liberty, a felix necessitas boni. This is the liberty which belongs to God. In the popular mind perhaps the common idea of liberty is, the power to decide for good or evil, sin or holiness. This idea pervades more or less all the disquisitions in favour of the liberty of indifference, or of power to the contrary. The essence of liberty in a moral accountable being, according to Reid, is the power to do what he is accountable for.

So Cousin, Jouffroy, Tappan, and this whole class of writers, make liberty and ability synonymous. The last-mentioned author, when speaking of the distinction between natural and moral inability, says, “when we have denied liberty in denying a self-determining power, these definitions, in order to make out a quasi liberty and ability, are nothing but ingenious folly and plausible deception.”1 Here liberty and ability are avowedly used as convertible terms.

Other writers who do not ignore the distinction between liberty and ability, yet distinguish them only as different forms of liberty. This is the case with many of the German authors. As for example with Müller, who distinguishes the Formale Freiheit, or ability, from the Reale Freiheit, or liberty as it actually exists. The former is only necessary as the condition of the latter. That is, he admits, that if a man’s acts are certainly determined by his character, he is really free.

But in order to render him justly responsible for his character, it must be self-acquired.2 This is confounding things which are not only distinct, but which are admitted to be distinct. It is admitted by this class of writers, and, indeed, by the whole Christian world, that men since the fall have not power to make themselves holy; much less to effect this transformation by a volition. It is admitted that saints in glory are infallibly determined by their character to holiness, yet fallen men and saints are admitted to be free. Ability may be lost, yet liberty remain. The former is lost since the fall. Restored by grace, as they say, it is to be again lost in that liberty to good which is identical with necessity. If liberty and ability are thus distinct, why should they be confounded? We are conscious of liberty. We know ourselves to be free in all our volitions. They reveal themselves to our inmost consciousness as acts of self-determination. We cannot disown them, or escape responsibility on account of them, even if we try; and yet no man is conscious of ability to change his own heart.

Free agency belongs to God, to angels, to saints in glory, to fallen men, and to Satan; and it is the same in all. Yet in the strictest sense of the words, God cannot do evil; neither can Satan recover, by a volition, his lost inheritance of holiness. It is a great evil thus to confound things essentially distinct. It produces endless confusion.

Augustine says, man is not free since the fall, because he cannot but sin; saints are free because they cannot sin. Inability in the one case destroys freedom; inability in the other is the perfection of freedom! Necessity is the very opposite of liberty, and yet they are said to be identical.

One man in asserting the freedom of the will, means to assert free agency, while he denies ability; another means by it full ability. It is certainly important that the same words should not be used to express antagonistic ideas.

Confusion of thought and language, however, is not the principal evil which arises from making liberty and ability identical. It necessarily brings us into conflict with the truth, and with the moral judgments of men. There are three truths of which every man is convinced from the very constitution of his nature. (1.) That he is a free agent.

(2.) That none but free agents can be accountable for their character or conduct.

J.

10

@Johann, thanks for the invite, but I think I’ll pass.

1 Like
11

Any reason you want to give this a pass @KPuff ?
You can DM me and let me know.

J.

12

Perhaps I am wrong, but to Augustine, there is a massive difference between liberum arbitrium or the capacity to choose, and libertas or the moral freedom to do what is right. Augustine argues that after the Fall, humans still have “free will” in a mechanical sense. That we make choices every day. However, our orientation is broken. We are like a compass that always points toward self-interest rather than toward God.

Then he argues that Saints have the inability to sin? This isn’t a physical restraint; it’s a moral corruption. Think of it like an addiction. An addict “freely” chooses to take a substance, but they are not “free” from the power the substance has over them. They are “free” to choose their own destruction, which Augustine wouldn’t call true freedom at all. True freedom comes when the saints in heaven gain the “inability to sin,” which is seen as the perfection of freedom.

So you are saying that this is what you believe? That we have freewill but cannot choose good over evil? One of my concerns, and yes, I believe the Word,

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”

If we believe that predestination is the complete form that exists, meaning we cannot choose God or to accept Jesus without God doing it for us, does this not contradict passages like these?

“The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” 2 Peter 3:9

Or even the most famous, John 3:16-18

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

“Not wishing ANY should perish, but that All should reach repentance.” “Whosoever.” “Whoever.”

If God wants all saved, which I believe He does, then where would the freewill be to choose Him if we cannot unless He draws us out and calls us to Him. If that is the case, then He is waiting for nothing? Correct?
Peter

13

Is it our free will that saved us or was it God?

Very simple question.

J.

14

Yes and no. Do I think God elected me to be saved and serve Him? Yes. So in that case, I do believe that God arranged it for me to be saved. However, as I said before above, what about those other passages that talk about ALL can be saved if they believe, and or God does not want ANY to perish.

So again, if God is the only one who can bring someone to Jesus and salvation is based on this action alone, then? You get my question. That means we are not free to choose; therefore, there is no point in waiting or giving someone the chance to repent and be saved. Or are we just dealing in Syncretism?

I think that is a pretty simple question, my Brother. (Smile) How would you reconcile these?

Peter

15

I think I understand why you think the Bible teaches that everyone will be saved, especially verses like 2 Peter 3:9,Hab. 2:3; Heb. 10:37, [Eccles. 8:11; Rev. 2:21] John 3:16, and 1 Timothy 2:4, but the Greek and context show otherwise. In 2 Peter 3:9, the words τις meaning anyone and πάντες meaning all refer to those within the audience Peter is writing to, the beloved elect, not every human being. All here is about everyone in that covenant group, not universal humanity

In John 3:16-18, the promise of eternal life is for all who believe. The Greek ὁ πιστεύων is a present participle, meaning ongoing belief. Salvation is conditional on faith, and those who do not believe are condemned, so it cannot be universal. The world, κόσμος, refers to people exposed to God’s message, not every person ever born.

In 1 Timothy 2:4, Paul speaks of God desiring all people to be saved, but the immediate context is prayer for rulers and those in authority. The Greek πᾶς here means all kinds of people, every class, ethnic group, or social category, not literally every individual. Reading it otherwise would contradict passages like Matthew 25:46, where eternal life and eternal punishment are equally eternal and mutually exclusive.

As for free will, Augustine rightly distinguishes between the ability to choose, liberum arbitrium, and true moral freedom, libertas. After the Fall, humans can make choices, but their will is oriented toward sin.

John 6:44 ch. 12:32; Jer. 31:3; Hos. 11:4; [ver. 65; ch. 4:23] shows that no one can come to Christ without the Father drawing them. God’s drawing is effective, yet He still uses preaching and invitation to call people,The Father who sent me draws him. The author never specifically explains what this “drawing” consists of. It is evidently some kind of attraction; whether it is binding and irresistible or not is not mentioned. But there does seem to be a parallel with 6:65, where Jesus says that no one is able to come to him unless the Father has allowed it. This apparently parallels the use of Isaiah by John to reflect the spiritual blindness of the Jewish leaders (see the quotations from Isaiah in John 9:41 and 12:39-40).

The Bible consistently teaches that God desires salvation and provides it for those He draws, across all types and groups, but not that every human will be saved automatically. God’s will, human responsibility, and covenant context work together without contradiction.
Salvation is God’s work alone, yet accomplished through His appointed means.

Are we still on the same page? Unless, of course, you believe in universalism? Or prevenient grace?

In the sense that…

…Arminians hold that God’s grace is universal in offer, it is extended to everyone, but it is not irresistible. God enables all to respond, but He does not force salvation. This contrasts with classical Reformed or Calvinist teaching, where God’s grace is effectual, ensuring that those He elects will inevitably come to faith.

Arminianism teaches that grace helps fallen humans overcome the bondage of sin enough to make a real choice toward Christ, but it does not ensure that they will choose correctly. The emphasis is on human cooperation with divine enabling rather than God accomplishing salvation alone without the human response.

John 3:16 Dr James White - Does it say “Whoever?”

Joh 3:16 “For R8God so loved R9the world,N1 R10that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him [should not R11perish but have eternal life. Whoever believes, as opposed to those who DON’t believe.

Correct? And would you agree freewill is a work?

J
.

16

Just in case you are getting worried brother @PeterC …

Response to James White on John 6:37 Video

J.

17

Why are not all Saved?

1st Timothy 2:3-4: “This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

2nd Peter 3:9: “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”

Obviously, God desires and wishes that everyone become saved (1st Timothy 2:4; 2nd Peter 3:9), so why are not all, therefore, saved?

Arminianism teaches that all are not saved because God wants man to make a genuine decision for Him so that He can have genuine fellowship with Him, through the Prevenient Grace that He offers which enables a man to repent and become saved. Arminianism insists that God is not looking for robots.

Calvinism teaches that all are not saved because God wants to display His attributes, mercy and wrath, that is, mercy for some and wrath for others, so that some will become saved and some will perish. Calvinism insists that Irresistible Grace does not make men into robots, but means that they simply get a different heart than the one that they had before which resisted God. Both belief systems agree that those in Christ receive this “new heart” (2nd Corinthians 5:17), though just when a person becomes in Christ, is an area of debate. Do people become preemptively in Christ, unconsciously and involuntarily, or do people become in Christ only after being sealed in Him by the Holy Spirit by first believing in the Gospel, as Ephesians 1:13 teaches?

The bottom line is that Arminianism squares well with John 3:16, in terms of God’s love for the world, and squares well with Matthew 23:37 in which God allows His will to be thwarted. Only Arminianism makes God’s universal offer of salvation, a genuine bona fide offer. Although Calvinism is functionally sound, it is otherwise, not biblically sound, and hence, ought to be rejected.

J.

18

I’m sorry if I gave that impression. No. I do not believe that the Bible teaches that all will be saved. What I said was that the Bible teaches that God wishes all would be saved, but sadly, that will not be the case.

"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” Matthew 7:13-14

My point was attempting to understand where you were coming from. My question was, if God seemingly wants all saved, and you were saying we don’t have a choice, then what is the point? But I think you answered that further down.

Amen!

Yup. Thank you for your patience, and willing to debate.

Shalom

Peter